Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
3
debates
83.33%
won
Topic
#5112
Morality is Subjective
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1420
rating
396
debates
43.94%
won
Description
I believe that morality is subjective and am looking to find compelling arguments to the contrary.
Round 1
Morality is subjective
I firmly believe that morality is subjective. This is observable in the world through different cultures, religions, and geographic regions having wildly different standards on what is morally acceptable. Since other people from other backgrounds have a different set of moral values, built through their own unique set of circumstances, moral relativism is the only rationale explanation for moral values that vary so widely.
Common Con Arguments
- Morality is Self Evident - Self evident morality is a circular argument that boils down to "It is because it is." In order for this to hold water, we would all have to agree on what is right and wrong, and the disagreement would be if acting morally is always the correct course of action. I believe that this argument is fundamentally flawed.
- Objective Morality is no Different than an Observable Fact - I have seen this argument a lot recently, and don't believe that it holds up to scrutiny. In order for morality to be equivalent to an observable fact, we would have to have a unanimously agreed upon source to derive good and bad. If you are religious, I believe that this argument may hold up within your theological group. However, morality is an issue for all of humanity, and since it does not hold up outside of that one group, this argument is paper thin.
- A Human Being is of a Specific Nature - This may be the best argument I have personally seen, but believe that it makes bold assumptions about humanity. It assumes that all human beings are of the same nature and have the same values. Since human beings are of a rational nature in general, then their sense of right and wrong is changed based on their unique circumstances. It is irrational to assume that morality would transcend every possibly variable in the human experience.
Obviously I am just trying to clarify my stance with this initial post and address some common con arguments, but I look forward to addressing any argument brought up in this debate and possibly having my mind changed.
We can say that there's an order to things.
Everything we can see has some cause to an effect. That's universal, that's objective, in some sense in how reality is detected, that's it .
We notice that people organize what's called right and wrong determined by the effect or result .
The do's and don'ts get organized and compartmentalized. The order of things. One thing leads to the next so forth and so on .
People do have their order of things and that is subjected to them.
So the universal order of things is tailored, subjected and adjusted to the individual.
Doesn't negate the objective universal order.
This is like with language. You have what is proper English universally but colloquially people choose or just speak according to select circumstances. No matter improperly, mispronunciation, common lingo or slang that suits right according to the individual.
So for some examples to solidify this into the order of life. What effect does a fire cause?
It will burn. That's universal law, universal order, objective. Somebody that is engulfed in a fire is burned. That's universal law, universal order, objective.
Somebody engulfed in a fire to the point where not only the fire is extinguished but the life of the individual as well.That's universal law, universal order, objective.
Now there are actions regarding this as much as other areas of activity. I understand that when people discuss morality they mention about doing.
As in what the right thing to DO is. What the wrong thing to DO would be. These doings are dividing into lists based on the effect.
In a nutshell, all actions that are done to cause one to perish in a fire is listed in one category divided from another for all actions to be done to avoid being consumed by a fire.
The categories are separated based on the type of effect which is one of existing/continuing to exist or not existing .
These two phenomenas are objective.That's universal law, universal order. What people may choose to call these two distinct categories of two distinct effects can be subjective. Whether they call one moral, right, correct, constructive, beneficial good, bad, wicked, heinous, macabre, destructive, adverse, detrimental, etc.
All matter of choice for what is true universally no matter whom you talk to.
Round 2
Forfeited
I rest my case. No rebuttal from the other side leaves a full conceding to my side.
Round 3
Forfeited
Case closed.
"Somebody engulfed in a fire to the point where not only the fire is extinguished but the life of the individual as well. That's universal law, universal order, objective. Now there are actions regarding this as much as other areas of activity. I understand that when people discuss morality they mention about doing. As in what the right thing to DO is. What the wrong thing to DO would be. These doings are dividing into lists based on the effect. In a nutshell, all actions that are done to cause one to perish in a fire is listed in one category divided from another for all actions to be done to avoid being consumed by a fire."
What's not understood about what is said here?
Comment, send me a message. Otherwise irrefutable as always.
"Somebody engulfed in a fire to the point where not only the fire is extinguished but the life of the individual as well. That's universal law, universal order, objective. Now there are actions regarding this as much as other areas of activity. I understand that when people discuss morality they mention about doing. As in what the right thing to DO is. What the wrong thing to DO would be. These doings are dividing into lists based on the effect. In a nutshell, all actions that are done to cause one to perish in a fire is listed in one category divided from another for all actions to be done to avoid being consumed by a fire."
???
I believe I did state them correctly. I believe that the totality of morality is subjective and there is no objective morality. I don't know what you believe I stated incorrectly.
In reply to your current comment on this debate:
Then you should state your beliefs by using words properly next time.
Should have accepted the debate first. I don't believe any aspect of morality is objective.
"Morality is subjective" means that you're claiming what morality is.. is subjective. This is wrong. Morality is not subjective.. Morality is also subjective. Subjective is not the only part of morality, because objective is another part of morality.